1. Based on presentations by French energy ministry, David Suzuki, Tyndall Centre and FEASTA

3.  An externality is a cost that occurs outside the firm —it falls on neither the producer nor the consumer but a third party, usually the citizen  Emissions of carbon dioxide in production and transport are not costed—the ‘free good’ is overused

4.  Potentially large costs  Uncertainty  Lack of credibility

5.  Upstream – with producers – is simpler, e.g. when the fossil fuel comes out of the ground  How can we be sure this will be passed on to consumers?  Downstream is complex and costly  But downstream – i.e. with consumers – does impose individual responsibility  Downstream is also educational

6.  Applying a price to emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), not just carbon dioxide (CO2 does make up 80% of GHGs)  Both carbon tax and cap-and-trade system are examples of carbon pricing  Polluter pays principle: stop treating the atmosphere as a free dumping ground  Including this cost gives an incentive for polluters to invest in using less energy and using cleaner energy (EE and RE): especially strong for heavy industry

7.  Substitute lower- energy production systems?  Cost of fuel may increase three of five times—what about those long supply chains?  Increased cost of commuting and long- distance travel

8.  Allocate permits to companies based on their existing emissions  Those who can control these most efficiently will sell surplus to others  Market efficiency

9.  The EU-ETS was set up to: -reduce greenhouse gas emissions emitted in the EU -do so at least cost by allowing trading in the right to emit carbon -keep under a cap set by the Kyoto treaty

10.  Aimed to: reduce greenhouse gas emissions emitted in the EU do so at least cost by allowing trading in the right to emit carbon keep under a cap set by the Kyoto treaty  It did this by: - Issuing a limited number of permits to emit carbon dioxide - giving them to 5,000 of the EU’s biggest emitters - allowing trading between the recipients

11.  Firms have charged consumers for emission rights they received for free  This has increased their profits. The WWF estimates that German utilities will make windfall profits of between €31-€64 billion to 2012 because of allowances.  It has also increased the cost of electricity to consumers and businesses  Bureaucratic expenses associated with National Allocation Plans, verification and compliance are being paid for by the public

12.  Meeting the demands of powerful utility companies and acting in the perceived national interest creates a high moral hazard  The system is open to corruption at a national level. Finland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovakia allocated 25% more than their recent emissions.  The system is open to corruption at the firm level since company allocations are set by governments.  A per capita sharing of permits would be much more transparent, and much fairer

13.  Whose right is it to emit? Should it be given to an arbitrary group of companies, based on their past emissions? (“grandfathering”)  Should it be applied partially ‘downstream’  Should valuable permits worth €170 billion at issue be given away?  Should it cover only 43% of EU emissions?

14.  For most sources of GHG emissions, it is applied as a fuel tax, based on amount of fuel sold e.g. gasoline:  We know GHG emissions per litre of gasoline so convert the price per tonne into a price per litre ($10/tonne CO2 = 2.3 cents/litre of gas)  Apply to fuel wholesalers  Do this for tonnes of coal and cubic feet of nat. gas  For process emissions, also applied as a tax but need estimate of GHG emissions

15.  Advantages  Can be implemented quickly (BC: 4 months)  Industry and other fuel users know exactly the costs they face now and in near future  Disadvantages  We are less sure of what emission reductions will result

16. http://www.gci.org.uk/contconv/cc.html

17. Gtc 5Gtc 10Gtc 15Gtc 20Gtc 18001900200021002200 Atmospheric Concentrations Business as Usual (BAU) Annual Emissions (BAU) Stabilising atmospheric concentrations with C&C 650 850 1050 ppmv 450 250 Contracting emissions with C&C

18. Based on 1998 Data

19. 5Gtc 10Gtc 1900200021001800 2200 0 2 4 6 Gross Emissions Per Capita Emissions USA OECD minus USA Annex 1 (non-OECD) China Rest of World India Annual Per Capita CO 2 Emissions [tonnes per capita per annum] Annual Gross CO 2 Emissions [Gigatonnes per annum]

20.  Issues entitlements for all the emissions allowed in a year under the EU ’ s Kyoto target or that set by its successor.  Gives equal entitlements to each EU resident  Recipients then sell their entitlements at the current market rate, via banks or post-offices  The entitlements are sold by the banks to companies producing or importing fossil fuels in the EU  Each importer or producer needs to buy enough permits to cover the eventual emissions from the fuels they sell.

22.  Total emissions in the US: 20 t CO2 per capita  Non-personal: services, goods and infrastructure--11 t CO2 per capita  Personal: home energy and transport-- 9 t CO2 per capita  An equitable share to stabilize at 450 ppm – Mayer Hillman ~1 t CO2 per capita

23. 1- Setting the carbon budget 2- Surrendering carbon units 3- Allocating carbon units

25.  Individuals receive a free and equal per capita carbon allowance  Individuals exceeding their free allowance will have to buy additional carbon units from the market  Individuals having surplus carbon units will be able sell or save them

27.  Smart bills  Smart meters  Smart receipts  Enhanced petrol pumps  Carbon-ometers  Carbon responsibility in advertising  Carbon labels  Carbon promises  Carbon-rated homes  Carbon watchers